demand.list_constraintsiwant.fyi demand-side protocol v1.0 §8.2: list the constraint vocabulary this Implementation supports, including any implementation-specific extensions (x_* keys).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds only the detail of listing extensions. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., performance, authorization) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the purpose. Every word contributes, and the protocol reference adds authoritative context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description only vaguely mentions 'constraint vocabulary' without detailing the return structure or format. More explicit description of the output (e.g., list of constraints with keys and definitions) would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description need not add param details. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly avoids conveying parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool lists the constraint vocabulary supported by the implementation, including extensions, with a specific protocol reference. This verb+resource pair clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_wants or create_listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing the constraint vocabulary, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_want vs demand.create_want, get_want vs demand.get_want, and browse_wants vs search_listings vs search_products vs demand.search. Although descriptions attempt to differentiate, the presence of near-duplicates will likely confuse an agent.
Mix of naming conventions: some tools use 'demand.' prefix, others do not. Most follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_want, search_listings), but 'my_agent_profile' deviates. Inconsistent prefix usage reduces predictability.
18 tools is on the higher side but still within reasonable bounds for a commerce platform. However, several tools are redundant (e.g., create_want/demand.create_want), inflating the count unnecessarily.
Covers core demand-side workflows: creating/searching wants, listings, products, and outcome tracking. Missing update operations for wants and listings, but no critical dead ends for basic use cases.